DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Simulations of arctic mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with CAM3 and AM2 for M-PACE

Abstract

[1] Simulations of mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with the NCAR Atmosphere Model version 3 (CAM3) and the GFDL Atmospheric Model version 2 (AM2) for the Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE) are performed using analysis data from numerical weather prediction centers. CAM3 significantly underestimates the observed boundary layer mixed-phase cloud fraction and cannot realistically simulate the variations of liquid water fraction with temperature and cloud height due to its oversimplified cloud microphysical scheme. In contrast, AM2 reasonably reproduces the observed boundary layer cloud fraction while its clouds contain much less cloud condensate than CAM3 and the observations. The simulation of the boundary layer mixed-phase clouds and their microphysical properties is considerably improved in CAM3 when a new physically based cloud microphysical scheme is used (CAM3LIU). The new scheme also leads to an improved simulation of the surface and top of the atmosphere longwave radiative fluxes. Sensitivity tests show that these results are not sensitive to the analysis data used for model initialization. Increasing model horizontal resolution helps capture the subgrid-scale features in Arctic frontal clouds but does not help improve the simulation of the single-layer boundary layer clouds. AM2 simulated cloud fraction and LWP are sensitive to the change in cloudmore » ice number concentrations used in the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process while CAM3LIU only shows moderate sensitivity in its cloud fields to this change. Furthermore, this paper shows that the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process is important for these models to correctly simulate the observed features of mixed-phase clouds.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [2];  [2]
  1. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
  2. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab., Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1281698
Report Number(s):
UCRL-JRNL-233107
Journal ID: ISSN 0148-0227; JGREA2
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-07NA27344
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 113; Journal Issue: D4; Journal ID: ISSN 0148-0227
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Xie, Shaocheng, Boyle, James, Klein, Stephen A., Liu, Xiaohong, and Ghan, Steven. Simulations of arctic mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with CAM3 and AM2 for M-PACE. United States: N. p., 2008. Web. doi:10.1029/2007JD009225.
Xie, Shaocheng, Boyle, James, Klein, Stephen A., Liu, Xiaohong, & Ghan, Steven. Simulations of arctic mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with CAM3 and AM2 for M-PACE. United States. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009225
Xie, Shaocheng, Boyle, James, Klein, Stephen A., Liu, Xiaohong, and Ghan, Steven. Wed . "Simulations of arctic mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with CAM3 and AM2 for M-PACE". United States. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009225. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1281698.
@article{osti_1281698,
title = {Simulations of arctic mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with CAM3 and AM2 for M-PACE},
author = {Xie, Shaocheng and Boyle, James and Klein, Stephen A. and Liu, Xiaohong and Ghan, Steven},
abstractNote = {[1] Simulations of mixed-phase clouds in forecasts with the NCAR Atmosphere Model version 3 (CAM3) and the GFDL Atmospheric Model version 2 (AM2) for the Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE) are performed using analysis data from numerical weather prediction centers. CAM3 significantly underestimates the observed boundary layer mixed-phase cloud fraction and cannot realistically simulate the variations of liquid water fraction with temperature and cloud height due to its oversimplified cloud microphysical scheme. In contrast, AM2 reasonably reproduces the observed boundary layer cloud fraction while its clouds contain much less cloud condensate than CAM3 and the observations. The simulation of the boundary layer mixed-phase clouds and their microphysical properties is considerably improved in CAM3 when a new physically based cloud microphysical scheme is used (CAM3LIU). The new scheme also leads to an improved simulation of the surface and top of the atmosphere longwave radiative fluxes. Sensitivity tests show that these results are not sensitive to the analysis data used for model initialization. Increasing model horizontal resolution helps capture the subgrid-scale features in Arctic frontal clouds but does not help improve the simulation of the single-layer boundary layer clouds. AM2 simulated cloud fraction and LWP are sensitive to the change in cloud ice number concentrations used in the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process while CAM3LIU only shows moderate sensitivity in its cloud fields to this change. Furthermore, this paper shows that the Wegener-Bergeron-Findeisen process is important for these models to correctly simulate the observed features of mixed-phase clouds.},
doi = {10.1029/2007JD009225},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research},
number = D4,
volume = 113,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Feb 27 00:00:00 EST 2008},
month = {Wed Feb 27 00:00:00 EST 2008}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 41 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

An assessment of ECMWF analyses and model forecasts over the North Slope of Alaska using observations from the ARM Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment
journal, January 2006

  • Xie, Shaocheng; Klein, Stephen A.; Yio, John J.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, Issue D5
  • DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006509

FIRE Arctic Clouds Experiment
journal, January 2000


A modified formulation of fractional stratiform condensation rate in the NCAR Community Atmospheric Model (CAM2)
journal, January 2003


The Formulation and Atmospheric Simulation of the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3)
journal, June 2006

  • Collins, William D.; Rasch, Philip J.; Boville, Byron A.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 19, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3760.1

Evaluation of a new mixed-phase cloud microphysics parameterization with CAM3 single-column model and M-PACE observations: CLOUD MICROPHYSICS PARAMETERIZATION
journal, December 2007

  • Liu, Xiaohong; Xie, Shaocheng; Ghan, Steven J.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 23
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007GL031446

A Comparison of the CCM3 Model Climate Using Diagnosed and Predicted Condensate Parameterizations
journal, July 1998


A Scheme for Calculation of the Liquid Fraction in Mixed-Phase Stratiform Clouds in Large-Scale Models
journal, April 2000


Representation of Clouds and Precipitation Processes in the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3)
journal, June 2006

  • Boville, Byron A.; Rasch, Philip J.; Hack, James J.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 19, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3749.1

First Results from the Alliance Icing Research Study II
conference, June 2012

  • Isaac, George; Ayers, J.; Bailey, M.
  • 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit
  • DOI: 10.2514/6.2005-252

Representation of Clouds in Large-Scale Models
journal, November 1993


Autumnal Mixed-Phase Cloudy Boundary Layers in the Arctic
journal, June 1998


Relative Humidity in Liquid, Mixed-Phase, and Ice Clouds
journal, November 2006

  • Korolev, Alexei; Isaac, George A.
  • Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 63, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1175/JAS3784.1

Validation and Sensitivities of Frontal Clouds Simulated by the ECMWF Model
journal, October 1999


The sensitivity of climate simulations to the specification of mixed phase clouds
journal, July 1996


Possible Aerosol Effects on Ice Clouds via Contact Nucleation
journal, February 2002


Numerical Simulation of the Effects of Varying Ice Crystal Nucleation Rates and Aggregation Processes on Orographic Snowfall
journal, November 1986


Retrieving Liquid Wat0er Path and Precipitable Water Vapor From the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Microwave Radiometers
journal, November 2007

  • Turner, David D.; Clough, Shepard A.; Liljegren, James C.
  • IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 45, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2007.903703

Can Ice-Nucleating Aerosols Affect Arctic Seasonal Climate?
journal, April 2007

  • Prenni, Anthony J.; Harrington, Jerry Y.; Tjernström, Michael
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 88, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-88-4-541

A Refined Two-Channel Microwave Radiometer Liquid Water Path Retrieval for Cold Regions by Using Multiple-Sensor Measurements
journal, October 2007


Ice nucleation parameterization for global models [Ice nucleation parameterization for global models]
journal, September 2005


Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean
journal, February 2002


Evaluating Parameterizations in General Circulation Models: Climate Simulation Meets Weather Prediction
journal, December 2004

  • Phillips, Thomas J.; Potter, Gerald L.; Williamson, David L.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 85, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-85-12-1903

Overview of Arctic Cloud and Radiation Characteristics
journal, August 1996


Modeling clouds observed at SHEBA using a bulk microphysics parameterization implemented into a single-column model
journal, January 2003


Liquid and Ice Cloud Microphysics in the CSU General Circulation Model. Part 1: Model Description and Simulated Microphysical Processes
journal, March 1996


Thermodynamik der Atmosphäre
book, January 1926


Inclusion of Ice Microphysics in the NCAR Community Atmospheric Model Version 3 (CAM3)
journal, September 2007

  • Liu, Xiaohong; Penner, Joyce E.; Ghan, Steven J.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 20, Issue 18
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4264.1

Cloud-radiation feedbacks in a general circulation model and their dependence on cloud modelling assumptions
journal, April 1992

  • Li, Zhao-Xin; Le Treut, HervĂ©
  • Climate Dynamics, Vol. 7, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1007/BF00211155

Ice forming nuclei in the high Arctic
journal, January 1996


Ice properties of single-layer stratocumulus during the Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment: 1. Observations
journal, January 2007

  • McFarquhar, Greg M.; Zhang, Gong; Poellot, Michael R.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, Issue D24
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007JD008633

Microstructures of low and middle-level clouds over the Beaufort Sea
journal, July 1998

  • Hobbs, Peter V.; Rangno, Arthur L.
  • Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 124, Issue 550
  • DOI: 10.1002/qj.49712455012

The Impact of Cloud Feedbacks on Arctic Climate under Greenhouse Forcing*
journal, February 2004


Year on ice gives climate insights
journal, January 1999

  • Perovich, Don K.; Andreas, E. L.; Curry, J. A.
  • Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 80, Issue 41
  • DOI: 10.1029/EO080i041p00481-01

Cloud resolving simulations of Arctic stratus
journal, April 1999


Works referencing / citing this record:

An improved hindcast approach for evaluation and diagnosis of physical processes in global climate models: AN IMPROVED HINDCAST APPROACH
journal, November 2015

  • Ma, H. -Y.; Chuang, C. C.; Klein, S. A.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 7, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015ms000490

Influence of anthropogenic sulfate and black carbon on upper tropospheric clouds in the NCAR CAM3 model coupled to the IMPACT global aerosol model
journal, January 2009

  • Liu, Xiaohong; Penner, Joyce E.; Wang, Minghuai
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 114, Issue D3
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008jd010492

Different contact angle distributions for heterogeneous ice nucleation in the Community Atmospheric Model version 5
journal, January 2014